AIkonoklazt

Like that matters when the only truth is the one people end up accepting “Machines can never be conscious because they work via algorithms” ”nope if they act conscious then they are deserving of rights, and if any human being ends up losing in court against one we’ll punish that rights-violating human” ”but that’s a violation of human rights” ”huh? No idea what you’re crazily rambling about. Now scram” “But the underlying nature of artifacts and algorithms-“ *escorted outside*

Maybe someone should stop reading sci-fi and read textbooks instead. Start with the AI textbook quoted in my original article.

Me neither. As for the other forum I mentioned, I was kicked before I could answer anything. The moderator only said that the post was dumb and that was reason enough. Well, at least some publications out there didn't think the points to be "dumb." The people who are arguing against free will can certainly agree that I "have no choice" in my reactions after being repeatedly treated in such manner. Looks like I "have no choice" but to adopt a hard determinist stance now, since it's so darned convenient! I "have no choice" but to engage in a certain way with academics on LinkedIn, while "having no choice" but "engaging" in an entirely different way on anonymous internet forums. Adopting different views actually have pragmatic effects, but nah, who cares. As long as it's convenient. I "have no choice" anyways.

I got an answer from the neuroscience research professor I've been keeping in touch with. He said that, yes, the position taken by the authors of the paper can indeed be seen as behaviorism. However, he also said that the author may be trying to make a point that was made by French philosopher Henri Bergson: Being that I've never even heard of, much less read Bergson, it's going to take me a while to go through and get a basic idea of it. I was also referred to this lecture:

Really amused by Manzotti's 2018 "GOFAC" paper today. I've seen the paper before but now that I've considered the proposed solution he's fielding, I can say that he did me a big favor. Here's how. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frobt.2018.00039/full The example given by the paper (apparently it's his own experimentation since he's also an author) is still measuring the result of programming: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921889004001861?via=ihub That is, if something is programmed "well enough" to produce certain measurements then it would be deemed conscious. That's just another variety of behaviorism that was already debunked by Searle. The paper is basically debunking functionalism while at the same time proposing yet another variety of behaviorism. It's arguably swatting away a stronger argument and replacing it with a weaker one. It's another classic "consciousness room." Also, it doesn't explain why those same measurements must be the result of consciousness. It is committing the same "gap" mistake it's pointing out in GOFACs.... Isn't "measurement" itself an "intermediate level," thus rendering the proposed alternative itself an intermediate level fallacy? The irony here would be extreme. My oh my. I'm going to check with some of my collaborators. I can't believe this.

I see that to some people, anything outside of physical origin is "supernatural," which to me is just physicalist rhetoric to debase anyone who isn't a physicalist (pluralists included). I've seen too many of those. Not talking of "souls" here but isn't that infinite regress of mental events? There's also the issue of the mind not being limited to the brain, or even the body (don't have the link handy to copy and paste again but I can find it again) p.s. Eise didn't use the term "supernatural." i wasn't referring to him.

The progression of the hexagrams (i.e. the sequence of broken and unbroken lines) are not random at all even if they were used in divination tools http://www.pantherwebworks.com/I_Ching/ my interpretation is more along cosmological lines (the "ebb and flow of cosmic forces") analogous to what's described in the section "The Cosmological Approach": https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-change/#CosmAppr

I'd say even eastern philosophies such as Taoism matter. I think of the Book of Changes as a record of pluralistic metaphysical analogies.

No, because even conjoined twins don't. https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/the-hogan-twins-share-a-brain-and-see-out-of-each-others-eyes This lends credence to the portrayal of brain as mind's tool.

In no particular order, what I can do is synthesize some observations that works off of a list of definitions such as this one https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mind (following numbers/letters refer to definitions from the link being worked off of): The mind is sole subjective[5] element[2a] of our selves. As such, the workings of the mind appear actively creative in nature[1] (this may run contrary to common conception of memory; I don't see the process as some mechanical reconstruction. The so-called "recollections" to me are not reproductions but recreations i.e. we creatively construct or "think up" what we think of as "memories." I don't have the literature to back this up at this moment but I've seen some material regarding this. I suppose I can just reuse the following link since it has that dollar-bill drawing example: https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer ) Because of its subjective nature, the mind can deal with referents[1][3][5][6], which are actually a part of itself[1][3][5][6] As for plasticity, I don't see much of anything in the universe that remains static, except perhaps something like the cosmological constant. There are basically an unlimited number of real things with plasticity.

The mind isn't limited to the brain or even to the body, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's universal. https://aeon.co/ideas/the-mind-isn-t-locked-in-the-brain-but-extends-far-beyond-it https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/08/25/1031432/what-is-mind-brain-body-connection/ (Uh, I see that iNow has downvoted one of my replies. The link went with the entire paragraph which asked for a different way to look at causation as simply corresponding from perceived physical "symptoms"....... yeah whatever)

Yes.

Some other things may be responsible for both, together or separately.

Which part of my response to him would you like me to elaborate?

No. I didn't argue for "non-plasticity." I was answering another user.

As I stated earlier in the thread, my particular pluralist metaphysical conception is completely non-useful in theorizing. However, I'd rather people try thinking alternatively in terms of "symptomatics" in terms of metaphysics. Everything we see and conceive are the symptoms of something else. What we see as "physical" is, so are everything else such as "mental." I can't simply say this category X I'm seeing universally "causes" this category Y I'm seeing, since there are these whatever else's that I can't ever perceive or even conceive. Here's a plain language article about correlations https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/science-questions/10-correlations-that-are-not-causations.htm

My main point is that the mind is what the mind is, irrespective of how anyone conceives of it. I'm not pointing to any particular conception of the mind, physical included. If someone thinks the mind is physical, then okay; I can go with that, for the sake of the conversation. Yes, I can agree that if we define it as something that is real and has an effect on the world, then the mind could be considered tangible. This excursion was an exercise in untangling the conflation of two concepts- The reality of the mind which was my focus, and its "non-plasticity," which I never even hinted at. I assume that you're asking for speculation and not theory. Here is my educated guesses in order: If we're just going by physical evidence, then the answer appears to be "no." This is from something I've written somewhere: One way this could be interpreted is that even within a single individual animal, the mind is unique at every instance of physical operative time. The common denominator of a term in all of its uses is in its definition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mind This is why we must be absolute sticklers for definitions, and why we should not create new meanings when few would correctly use and most would just misinterpret (esp. "technical meanings" such as "learning" in "machine learning" or even "intelligence" in "artificial intelligence"; I can go very much in depth into this as in write an entire article but maybe elsewhere) I wouldn't say "mirror image." However, minds exist even if not in isolation. ("Can minds exist in isolation" is some other topic altogether) Minds have a subjective character that's partially epistemically locked from externality. Here's the old question of "Do you know exactly what it is like to be me?" (okay now I realize that the item #1 should include "it's subjective in character")

The entire "dispute" was regarding whether the mind is a tangible entity. As I've already pointed out, to have something tangible suddenly become something not tangible simply by virtue of plasticity of that thing is committing an obvious category mistake. iNow basically has forgotten where the ball went in the tennis match. Everything he said, quoted, and even linked to only supports my point regarding tangibility. Even in the latest reply- He mentioned physical damage, which affects this tangible entity. The plasticity is also how the mind deal with changes in the environment. He doesn't even realize what he's writing, because he uses "it" to refer to the mind. I mean, if it's not tangible then what in the world is this "it" he's speaking of? I just find his responses to be silly at this point. It's going to be damaged the way it's going to be damaged no matter how you conceive it or its damage. It's going to be changed no matter how you conceive the change or how the change happens. It's baffling how I'd have to explain this to anyone.

Like I've already said, the plasticity is part of its operative process. To have something tangible suddenly become something not tangible simply by virtue of plasticity of that thing is committing an obvious category mistake.

You quoted me three times but you didn't comprehend any of the key words attached (bolded by me): I know about the plasticity, and that plasticity is part of its operative process (okay it's up to 5x the quotes now but doesn't change things one iota) To have something tangible suddenly become something not tangible simply by virtue of plasticity of that thing is committing an obvious category mistake.

Uh, that's what you were asserting. You evidently lost track in the space of one reply.

The so-called "change in structure" is part of the way it works. Thanks for telling me something I already know.

All of that is part of how the mind works. All of the above points to a tangible collection of mechanisms that's not going to change upon how anyone conceives any concept, including the mind. Of course I'd "treat the mind as something tangible." I'm not sure at this point you even know what you were arguing. Let's put the above within the context of why I refuse to engage in any theorizing regarding metaphysics (e.g. metaphysical pluralism) as I've mentioned. Any theory regarding something that couldn't possibly be verified, such as "more than one type of thing, or several types of things, ultimately makes up the universe" is not going to be useful. There is no such thing as "metaphysical science."

Ok how

How does your conception of physical processes affect said processes? If you think of physics differently, does that affect the laws of physics? Also, it seems to me that you're losing track of what you were disputing, or was confused in the first place. I said how the mind works isn't affected by what you think of the mind, and not current thoughts couldn't influence future ones.